[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft IDD 2.0 templates
Dear Jon Bosak, Dear Roberto Cisternino, Thank you very much for your valuable comments and warm consideration. 1. Answers to Jon's comments - Judging from the example, the only two "business processes" are "Procurement" and "Transportation." - Is this a useful distinction? YS: This information (business processes) is "Must" information for JPLSC. Because, we share the translation work. One person translate both the Common ABIEs and Procurement ABIEs. The other one translate the Transportation ABIEs. I don't know whether all LSC and all UBL users need this information (business processes) as a official IDD V2.0 or not. Please discuss at UBL TC meeting. - What do we do with information items that are used both for procurement and for transportation? YS: As you know, about one year ago, UBL TC Hangzou meeting decided that the common library will be divide to three files. They are Common, Procurement, and Transportation. By some discussion at the PSC (Procurement Sub committee), this decision was changed. The common library is one library. Instead, the business process column is inserted at the UBL V2.0 spreadsheet. - The business process assignments in the spec are much finer grained (Create Catalogue, Ordering, Fulfilment with Receipt Advice, etc.). Why are we not using those? YS: I agree with your opinion. If some ABIEs in the Common library are used only specified business process (e.g. Create Catalogue, Ordering, Fulfilment with Receipt Advice, etc), I think the specified business process name will be described at the business process column. But in may sense, there are few or a few ABIEs that are used only specified business process (e.g. Create Catalogue, Ordering, Fulfilment with Receipt Advice, etc). This issue had better be discussed at the future discussion based on further research. 2. Answer to Roberto comments (1) Three choice Thank you for your proposal (three choice). I will follow UBL TC discussion. If almost UBL TC members think that the business process column is necessary for the official UBL IDD V2.0, please select option (1). If almost UBL TC members think that the business process column is unnecessary for the official UBL IDD V2.0, please select option (2). (2) Template header (by adding a title and a date). We usually manage these spreadsheets by using printed paper. In case to print the your original IDD template, there is no information regarding business document types. Therefore I inserted the title and the date (making date) in the spreadsheet. If file name will be printed by using Excel function, that will be OK. (3) File name As you maybe know, I have changed the original file name. (For example) UBL-Catalogue-2.0-JP.xsl -> 01-UBL-Catalogue-2.0-JP.xsl UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.0-JP.xsl -> 02-UBL-CatalogueRequest-2.0-JP.xs UBL-Order-2.0-JP.xsl -> 08-UBL-Order-2.0-JP.xsl UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-JP.xsl -> 51-UBL-CommonLibrary-2.0-JP.xsl This is because I wanted the 53 business documents will be listed manageable order. In case the original file name, the appearance order of 53 business documents are disorder. I attched the translation template that has changed file names. By the way, I cannot attend the next UBL TC telephone conference. Best Regards, Yukinori Saito ----- Original Message ----- From: <roberto@javest.com> To: <jon.bosak@sun.com> Cc: <ubl@lists.oasis-open.org>; <n.itoh@otsuka-shokai.co.jp>; <naitoh@is.oit.ac.jp>; <kueno@iea.att.ne.jp>; <kunio_ohno@justsystem.co.jp> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:57 PM Subject: Re: [ubl] Draft IDD 2.0 templates Hello everybody, as localization templates have been designed to allow an automatic merge necessary to achieve the final complete IDD, we have to consider 3 choices for the Business Process column: 1) I add the column to all templates for all languages. 2) JPLSC adds the column for internal use and I remove it just before the merge process (not a clean way). 3) JPLSC or others could add the column at the rightmost (latest) column, this way the merce process could ignore the column, or this column could be just "hidden" before the merge process. NOTE: Another important issue I found by checking the JPLSC sample is they modified the template header (by ading a title and a date). If this is necessary we have to do it for all templates and LSCs. For general info the UBL module title is already available as a file-name (thus is visible on the title bar of Excel) and also into spreadsheet properties (under File menu). I am not sure I will be able to attend the conference call yet, I will try to organize myself, however I will reply any question where necessary ASAP. Best Regards UBL ITLSC co-chair Roberto Cisternino > [saito-yukinori@fujielectric.co.jp:] > > | I made the Common library spreadsheet that contains Business Process > column. > | I attached the Common library spreadsheet for JPLSC use. > | I would like to use this spreadsheet for our Japanese translation. > > We need to discuss this during the conference calls next week. > > Among the questions I have: > > - If this is useful for JPLSC, then why not for all of us? > > - If this is useful only for JPLSC, what are the implications for > making an integrated IDD? > > - Judging from the example, the only two "business processes" are > "Procurement" and "Transportation." > > - Is this a useful distinction? > > - What do we do with information items that are used both for > procurement and for transportation? > > - The business process assignments in the spec are much finer > grained (Create Catalogue, Ordering, Fulfilment with Receipt > Advice, etc.). Why are we not using those? > > Note that I am not saying that I think the Business Process column > is not useful. I just want to be clear on how best to implement this > idea. > > Jon > Roberto Cisternino
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]